Rotator Cuff Tear or Rupture, Not Specified as TraumaticNCT04946149
Psychosocial Factors, Lifestyle and Central Pain Processing as Potential Predictors of Outcome for Rotator Cuff Repair
An observational study of Rotator Cuff Tear or Rupture, Not Specified as Traumatic, run by Kantonsspital Winterthur KSW at 1 site in Switzerland.
Trial summary
The influence of modifiable psychosocial and lifestyle factors and the role of central pain processing (CPP) on outcome after rotator cuff repair (RCR) is not well enough established to formulate holistic prognosis. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Rotator Cuff Tear or Rupture, Not Specified as Traumatic
- How many people
- 142 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSwitzerland
- Study dates
- 1 Jan 2019to 10 May 2022
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Adult musculoskelettal shoulder pain patients, scheduled for first time rotator cuff repair at the acute care hospital Kantonsspital Winterthur in Switzerland. Traumatic and non-traumatic origin of shoulder pain.
Who may be able to join
- Scheduled for elective arthroscopic RCR;
- First time RCR on the target shoulder;
- Completed primary and secondary outcome measures (Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC), Constant Score, Maximum Pain on Numeric Rating Scale and EQ-5D-5L) from daily routine.
Who cannot join
- Changes of intra operative procedure (e.g. anything but RCR)
- Re-repair of tendon;
- No surgery;
- Other pain-related or neurological comorbidities that could interfere with pain measures;
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Switzerland1 site
Kantonsspital Winterthur
Winterthur, Canton of Zurich, 8401
About this study
Official title: Psychosocial Factors, Lifestyle and Central Pain Processing as Potential Predictors of Outcome After Rehabilitation for Rotator Cuff Repair: A Study Design for a Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study
The influence of modifiable psychosocial and lifestyle factors and the role of central pain processing (CPP) on outcome after rotator cuff repair (RCR) is not well enough established to formulate holistic prognosis. Modern pain neuroscience emphasises to explain musculoskeletal shoulder pain biopsychosocially, which seems short when looking at the yearly RCR increase. This study will explore modifiable psychosocial and lifestyle factors and CPP as potential predictors for outcome after RCR.
Read the detailed description
Shoulder pain is the third most common musculoskeletal disorder seen in primary care with low recovery rates (50-60%) 12 to 18 months post onset. Rotator cuff (RC) disorders are the most common amongst shoulder pain patients with a life-time prevalence of around 70%. There is a lack of consensus concerning the cause of shoulder pain, as many people present with structural changes of their RC, yet they do not suffer pain. Reports from the United States acknowledge that only one third of RC lesions are symptomatic. RC degeneration measured in cadavers, increases rapidly from the age of 50 to 55, peaking at 80 years. Contrary to this observed increasing mechanistic change, the pain curve from the age of 65 onwards. This decrease in pain implies that shoulder pain is not solely based upon the presence of a RC tear, or other underlying structural changes.
Patients who demonstrate structural changes of their RC, are still predominantly treated using biomedical reasoning. There was a reported 270,000 annual surgeries in the USA and an increase of 204% in rotator cuff repairs (RCR) between 1998 and 2011 in Finland. Satisfactory outcomes ranged from 38% to 95%. Biomedical prognostic indicators dominate the orthopaedic research on outcomes post RCR. Biomedical factors include; arm function (e.g. muscle strength), radiological findings (e.g. tear size) or demographics (e.g. age). This assertion was backed by a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding prognosis post RCR, where mainly anatomical and functional shoulder factors were analysed.
Despite the reliance on biomedical indicators, there is a growing body of evidence about the impact of psychosocial factors on persistent shoulder pain, and on outcomes after RCR. The biopsychosocial model first described by Engel in the 1970's incorporates multiple dimensions and explains illness or disease based upon biomedical, psychological and social determinants of health. The perception of high job demand, poor social support, baseline high distress, maladaptive pain beliefs such as catastrophic thinking and pain self-efficacy can lead to persistent shoulder pain and disability. The absence of psychological distress is also associated with improved self-efficacy ("the capacity to produce important effects"), and lower levels of pain and disability. However, studies on the influence of psychosocial factors post RCR, demonstrate weak interactions. Patients with existing preoperative psychological conditions like depression and anxiety or cognitive psychological factors like pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia, and psychological distress demonstrate higher pre-operative pain levels.
High patients' expectations of a positive outcome post RCR show independent and strong associations to satisfactory outcomes after RCR, measured in pain and disability, and performance at one-year post-op. However, it is unclear which circumstances lead to high or low expectations and how one should measure these. Low expectations in conservative treatments like physiotherapy, can be influenced by the patients' biomedical oriented attitudes and beliefs towards pain and disability. High expectations on outcome post RCR may be further driven by the failure of conservative treatments (e.g. Physiotherapy).
Sleep disturbance is highly prevalent in rotator cuff related shoulder pain patients and shoulder pain was found to be a strong predictor for sleep disturbance. RCR seems to reduce this vicious interplay between pain and sleep as findings demonstrate an overall post RCR improvement of sleep quality. The same study did not find any predictive power for insomnia on outcome post RCR.
The relationship between CPP measures such as central sensitisation (CS), or quantitative sensory testing (QST) and prolonged shoulder pain have been established.
To conclude, in the literature there is a lack of knowledge about modifiable psychosocial and lifestyle factors and CPP for predicting outcome after RCR. Clinicians need an improved explanatory model to predict successful outcomes post RCR. Neither the local tissue pathology-pain model nor the growing knowledge about local biochemical changes in the tendons, sufficiently describe the relationship between tissue changes and perceived shoulder pain. There is insufficient understanding to what extent cognitive psychological factors like pain catastrophizing, high perceived stress or low self-efficacy may influence outcome after RCR and whether or not they drive high or low patients' expectations (psychosocial factor) for surgery. The role of sleep on outcome after RCR remains obscure. Finally, the association of CPP with prolonged recovery post RCR is unknown.
This study aims to support the understanding of psychosocial factors and their influence on outcome after RCR. The investigators hypothesise that psychosocial factors, lifestyle factors and CPP do play a role in individual prognosis for outcome after RCR. If modifiable psychosocial or lifestyle related factors such as patients' expectations on surgery, catastrophic pain thinking, high perceived stress, altered injury perceptions, sleep disturbance or altered central pain processing are identified as predictors for post RCR outcome, clinicians might tailor treatment and potentially patient selection for RCR based upon improved factors and hypothetically reduce the number of persistent shoulder pain patients one year after onset.
This study aims to answer the following questions:
- Is there an association between psychosocial factors including expectations, lifestyle factors such as sleep and CPP with outcome (quality of life, pain and disability) after RCR at 12 weeks and 12 months?
- To what extent do these pre-interventional variables predict post-operative RCR outcome at 12 weeks and 12 months? Methods Study Design and setting The study will be implemented and reported in line with the STROBE statement for observational studies.
Data are obtained monocentric in the shoulder and elbow surgery unit in the clinic of orthopaedic surgery and traumatology in alliance with the institute of therapy and rehabilitation of the acute care hospital, "Kantonsspital Winterthur" in Switzerland.
The current research project will analyze data from three selected time points of this clinical routine of the RCR management; 2-3 weeks preoperative (T1), 12 weeks postoperative (T2) and 12 months postoperative (T3). Data from January 2019 will be considered. Data collection will be stopped after the inclusion of 141 individual datasets with 12 months follow up, estimated to be completed in late Spring 2022.
Demographic variables such as age, gender, and profession and comorbidities, including diabetes, rheumatological disease, cardiovascular disease, and neurological disease, will be registered.
The investigators will use a mixed-effects regression model for repeated measures. This will have the power to detect a moderate effect size that is still clinically relevant (15% difference in WORC score) with confidence level α=0.5, (two-tailed) and a desired power of 90%. The required total sample size was calculated to be 125 subjects (Edland). Mixed models do not require complete datasets to produce accurate results, but the statistical analysts have accounted for potential attrition. Given an expected drop-out rate of approximately 12.5%, a total number of 141 patients is needed. The power is set at 90% to minimize the chance of making a type II error.
Statistical Methods and Analysis Statistical analyses will be performed using RStudio. Level of significance is set at p = 0.05. Appropriate descriptive statistics will be performed. Measurements will take place at three time points in the perioperative management, as described above (T1 = at baseline 2-3 weeks prior to RCR, T2 = at 12 weeks post RCR and T3 = at 12 months post RCR as follow-up).
The primary outcome (WORC) will be analysed using multilevel linear regression models for repeated (longitudinal) measures, using an unstructured covariance matrix. Dependent variables are the primary and secondary outcomes. Continuous secondary outcomes will be assessed in a similar way to the primary outcome. The models will be developed by stepwise reduction of the potential predictors (for, psychosocial factors, sleep and CPP). Categorical data (e.g. EQ-5D-5L) will be analysed using logistic models. For non-repeated continuous and binary measurements, ordinary linear regression and logistic models will be used, respectively. Six predictors as clustered variables will be studied. The psychosocial variables are: 1) expectation, 2) pain catastrophizing, 3) perceived stress, 4) illness perceptions; the lifestyle factor; 5) sleep and 6) central pain processing (see table 2 for more detail).
Data security and management Data generation, transmission, storage and analysis within this project strictly follow Swiss legal requirements for data protection. The electronic data capture (EDC) software REDCap (www.project---redcap.org) will be used for data processing and management. Appropriate coded identification (e.g. pseudonymisation) is used in order to enter subject data into the database. The coding list of target data is saved in a secured folder on the hospital's server.
Ethics The study underlies the principles of the Helsinki Declaration. Only data of patients who gave general consent to the hospital or informed written consent to the project will be considered for analysis. Ethical approval received January 2019 (ID 2018-02089) by the Ethical Committee of the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland.
- Keywords
- rotator cuff repair, pain catastrophising, distress, psychological factors, expectations, sleep, central pain prossecing
- Medical subject headings
- Rotator Cuff Injuries, Rupture
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) change from preOP to 12 weeks postOP and preOP to 12months postOP
This 21 - items self-reported questionnaire represents a quality of life measure in rotator cuff pathology. The WORC measures 5 dimensions (pain, sports/leisure, work, daily living, feelings) with 3-6 questions per domain, measured on a 100mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Left endpoint equals "no" and right endpoint equals "extreme". The total WORC score ranges from 0 (best) to 2100 (worst) (21 items x 100mm). The minimal important difference (MID) is calculated at 300mm. The PROM is reported to have positive evidence for 5 psychometric properties; internal consistency, reliability, content validity, hypothesis testing and responsiveness.
Measured: pre operative (T1), 12 Weeks postoperative (T2), 12 months postoperative (T3)
Secondary outcomes (4)
Constant-Murlex Score change from preOP to 12months postOP
The Constant-Murley Score assesses shoulder function of which 35 % are subjective variables (maximum pain intensity, work, sport/leisure, sleep, pain free height for light work), and 65% are objective variables (range of motion (ROM) and strength measure). A sum score of 100 represents perfect shoulder function, 0 represents no functionality
Measured: pre operative (T1), 12 months postoperative (T3)
Maximum Pain on Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), change from preOP to 12 weeks postOP and preOP to 12months postOP
Patients are asked to indicate the maximum perceived shoulder pain felt in daily life on an NRS from 0 (no pain at all) to 10 (worst imaginable pain)
Measured: pre operative (T1), 12 Weeks postoperative (T2), 12 months postoperative (T3)
EQ-5D-5L, Euroqol 5dimensions, 5 levels, Quality of life measure, change from preOP to 12 weeks postOP and preOP to 12months postOP
The research group EuroQol developed the EQ-5D-5L tool "in order to provide a simple, generic measure of health for clinical and economic appraisal". It contains of 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and depression/anxiety and 5 levels ranging from no problems, slight problems, moderate problems, severe problems, and extreme problems.
Measured: pre operative (T1), 12 Weeks postoperative (T2), 12 months postoperative (T3)
Subjective Shoulder Value, change from preOP to 12 weeks postOP and preOP to 12months postOP
The SSV is evaluated by one single standardised question:" What is the overall percent value of your shoulder, if a completely normal shoulder represents 100%?"
Measured: pre operative (T1), 12 Weeks postoperative (T2),12 months postoperative (T3)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Jun 2021
- Study start1 Jan 2019
- Primary completion10 May 2022
- Study completion10 May 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (42)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Rotator Cuff Tear or Rupture, Not Specified as TraumaticStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 142 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Kantonsspital Winterthur KSW
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Universiteit Antwerpen
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Ariane Schwank, Kantonsspital Winterthur KSW
- Investigators
- Ariane Schwank, MSc, Principal investigator, Kantonsspital Winterthur KSW
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04946149
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- ID2018-02089
- Status last verified
- Aug 2022
- First submitted
- 10 Jun 2021
- Last updated
- 19 Aug 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Coronado RA, Seitz AL, Pelote E, Archer KR, Jain NB. Are Psychosocial Factors Associated With Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Patients With Rotator Cuff Tears? A Systematic Review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Apr;476(4):810-829. doi: 10.1007/s11999.0000000000000087.
PubMed 29481342Vincent K, Leboeuf-Yde C, Gagey O. Are degenerative rotator cuff disorders a cause of shoulder pain? Comparison of prevalence of degenerative rotator cuff disease to prevalence of nontraumatic shoulder pain through three systematic and critical reviews. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 May;26(5):766-773. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.060. Epub 2017 Jan 12.
PubMed 28089260Bury J, Littlewood C. Rotator cuff disorders: a survey of current (2016) UK physiotherapy practice. Shoulder Elbow. 2018 Jan;10(1):52-61. doi: 10.1177/1758573217717103. Epub 2017 Jul 11.
PubMed 29276538Jain NB, Higgins LD, Losina E, Collins J, Blazar PE, Katz JN. Epidemiology of musculoskeletal upper extremity ambulatory surgery in the United States. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014 Jan 8;15:4. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-4.
PubMed 24397703Paloneva J, Lepola V, Aarimaa V, Joukainen A, Ylinen J, Mattila VM. Increasing incidence of rotator cuff repairs--A nationwide registry study in Finland. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015 Aug 12;16:189. doi: 10.1186/s12891-015-0639-6.
PubMed 26265152Novoa-Boldo A, Gulotta LV. Expectations Following Rotator Cuff Surgery. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2018 Mar;11(1):162-166. doi: 10.1007/s12178-018-9470-7.
PubMed 29435813Henn RF 3rd, Kang L, Tashjian RZ, Green A. Patients' preoperative expectations predict the outcome of rotator cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Sep;89(9):1913-9. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00358.
PubMed 17768186Lambers Heerspink FO, Dorrestijn O, van Raay JJ, Diercks RL. Specific patient-related prognostic factors for rotator cuff repair: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Jul;23(7):1073-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.01.001. Epub 2014 Apr 13.
PubMed 24725900Cho CH, Song KS, Hwang I, Warner JJ. Does Rotator Cuff Repair Improve Psychologic Status and Quality of Life in Patients With Rotator Cuff Tear? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Nov;473(11):3494-500. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4258-1.
PubMed 25791445Raman J, Walton D, MacDermid JC, Athwal GS. Predictors of outcomes after rotator cuff repair-A meta-analysis. J Hand Ther. 2017 Jul-Sep;30(3):276-292. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2016.11.002. Epub 2017 Feb 23.
PubMed 28237073Woollard JD, Bost JE, Piva SR, Kelley Fitzgerald G, Rodosky MW, Irrgang JJ. The ability of preoperative factors to predict patient-reported disability following surgery for rotator cuff pathology. Disabil Rehabil. 2017 Oct;39(20):2087-2096. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1219396. Epub 2016 Aug 22.
PubMed 27548366Thorpe AM, O'Sullivan PB, Mitchell T, Hurworth M, Spencer J, Booth G, Goebel S, Khoo P, Tay A, Smith A. Are Psychologic Factors Associated With Shoulder Scores After Rotator Cuff Surgery? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Oct;476(10):2062-2073. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000389.
PubMed 30179945Noten S, Struyf F, Lluch E, D'Hoore M, Van Looveren E, Meeus M. Central Pain Processing in Patients with Shoulder Pain: A Review of the Literature. Pain Pract. 2017 Feb;17(2):267-280. doi: 10.1111/papr.12502. Epub 2016 Oct 14.
PubMed 27739242Sanchis MN, Lluch E, Nijs J, Struyf F, Kangasperko M. The role of central sensitization in shoulder pain: A systematic literature review. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2015 Jun;44(6):710-6. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2014.11.002. Epub 2014 Nov 13.
PubMed 25523242Martinez-Calderon J, Meeus M, Struyf F, Miguel Morales-Asencio J, Gijon-Nogueron G, Luque-Suarez A. The role of psychological factors in the perpetuation of pain intensity and disability in people with chronic shoulder pain: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 13;8(4):e020703. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020703.
PubMed 29654040
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 Aug 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Psychosocial Factors, Lifestyle and Central Pain Processing as Potential Predictors of Outcome After Rehabilitation for Rotator Cuff Repair: A Study Design for a Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04946149
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ID2018-02089
- Keywords
- rotator cuff repair, pain catastrophising, distress, psychological factors, expectations, sleep, central pain prossecing
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 142 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Kantonsspital Winterthur KSWUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Universiteit Antwerpen
- Study start
- 1 Jan 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 10 May 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 10 May 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 30 Jun 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The influence of modifiable psychosocial and lifestyle factors and the role of central pain processing (CPP) on outcome after rotator cuff repair (RCR) is not well enough established to formulate holistic prognosis. Modern pain neuroscience emphasises to explain musculoskeletal shoulder pain biopsychosocially, which seems short when looking at the yearly RCR increase. This study will explore modifiable psychosocial and lifestyle factors and CPP as potential predictors for outcome after RCR.
Detailed description
Shoulder pain is the third most common musculoskeletal disorder seen in primary care with low recovery rates (50-60%) 12 to 18 months post onset. Rotator cuff (RC) disorders are the most common amongst shoulder pain patients with a life-time prevalence of around 70%. There is a lack of consensus concerning the cause of shoulder pain, as many people present with structural changes of their RC, yet they do not suffer pain. Reports from the United States acknowledge that only one third of RC lesions are symptomatic. RC degeneration measured in cadavers, increases rapidly from the age of 50 to 55, peaking at 80 years. Contrary to this observed increasing mechanistic change, the pain curve from the age of 65 onwards. This decrease in pain implies that shoulder pain is not solely based upon the presence of a RC tear, or other underlying structural changes.
Patients who demonstrate structural changes of their RC, are still predominantly treated using biomedical reasoning. There was a reported 270,000 annual surgeries in the USA and an increase of 204% in rotator cuff repairs (RCR) between 1998 and 2011 in Finland. Satisfactory outcomes ranged from 38% to 95%. Biomedical prognostic indicators dominate the orthopaedic research on outcomes post RCR. Biomedical factors include; arm function (e.g. muscle strength), radiological findings (e.g. tear size) or demographics (e.g. age). This assertion was backed by a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding prognosis post RCR, where mainly anatomical and functional shoulder factors were analysed.
Despite the reliance on biomedical indicators, there is a growing body of evidence about the impact of psychosocial factors on persistent shoulder pain, and on outcomes after RCR. The biopsychosocial model first described by Engel in the 1970's incorporates multiple dimensions and explains illness or disease based upon biomedical, psychological and social determinants of health. The perception of high job demand, poor social support, baseline high distress, maladaptive pain beliefs such as catastrophic thinking and pain self-efficacy can lead to persistent shoulder pain and disability. The absence of psychological distress is also associated with improved self-efficacy ("the capacity to produce important effects"), and lower levels of pain and disability. However, studies on the influence of psychosocial factors post RCR, demonstrate weak interactions. Patients with existing preoperative psychological conditions like depression and anxiety or cognitive psychological factors like pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia, and psychological distress demonstrate higher pre-operative pain levels.
High patients' expectations of a positive outcome post RCR show independent and strong associations to satisfactory outcomes after RCR, measured in pain and disability, and performance at one-year post-op. However, it is unclear which circumstances lead to high or low expectations and how one should measure these. Low expectations in conservative treatments like physiotherapy, can be influenced by the patients' biomedical oriented attitudes and beliefs towards pain and disability. High expectations on outcome post RCR may be further driven by the failure of conservative treatments (e.g. Physiotherapy).
Sleep disturbance is highly prevalent in rotator cuff related shoulder pain patients and shoulder pain was found to be a strong predictor for sleep disturbance. RCR seems to reduce this vicious interplay between pain and sleep as findings demonstrate an overall post RCR improvement of sleep quality. The same study did not find any predictive power for insomnia on outcome post RCR.
The relationship between CPP measures such as central sensitisation (CS), or quantitative sensory testing (QST) and prolonged shoulder pain have been established.
To conclude, in the literature there is a lack of knowledge about modifiable psychosocial and lifestyle factors and CPP for predicting outcome after RCR. Clinicians need an improved explanatory model to predict successful outcomes post RCR. Neither the local tissue pathology-pain model nor the growing knowledge about local biochemical changes in the tendons, sufficiently describe the relationship between tissue changes and perceived shoulder pain. There is insufficient understanding to what extent cognitive psychological factors like pain catastrophizing, high perceived stress or low self-efficacy may influence outcome after RCR and whether or not they drive high or low patients' expectations (psychosocial factor) for surgery. The role of sleep on outcome after RCR remains obscure. Finally, the association of CPP with prolonged recovery post RCR is unknown.
This study aims to support the understanding of psychosocial factors and their influence on outcome after RCR. The investigators hypothesise that psychosocial factors, lifestyle factors and CPP do play a role in individual prognosis for outcome after RCR. If modifiable psychosocial or lifestyle related factors such as patients' expectations on surgery, catastrophic pain thinking, high perceived stress, altered injury perceptions, sleep disturbance or altered central pain processing are identified as predictors for post RCR outcome, clinicians might tailor treatment and potentially patient selection for RCR based upon improved factors and hypothetically reduce the number of persistent shoulder pain patients one year after onset.
This study aims to answer the following questions:
- Is there an association between psychosocial factors including expectations, lifestyle factors such as sleep and CPP with outcome (quality of life, pain and disability) after RCR at 12 weeks and 12 months?
- To what extent do these pre-interventional variables predict post-operative RCR outcome at 12 weeks and 12 months? Methods Study Design and setting The study will be implemented and reported in line with the STROBE statement for observational studies.
Data are obtained monocentric in the shoulder and elbow surgery unit in the clinic of orthopaedic surgery and traumatology in alliance with the institute of therapy and rehabilitation of the acute care hospital, "Kantonsspital Winterthur" in Switzerland.
The current research project will analyze data from three selected time points of this clinical routine of the RCR management; 2-3 weeks preoperative (T1), 12 weeks postoperative (T2) and 12 months postoperative (T3). Data from January 2019 will be considered. Data collection will be stopped after the inclusion of 141 individual datasets with 12 months follow up, estimated to be completed in late Spring 2022.
Demographic variables such as age, gender, and profession and comorbidities, including diabetes, rheumatological disease, cardiovascular disease, and neurological disease, will be registered.
The investigators will use a mixed-effects regression model for repeated measures. This will have the power to detect a moderate effect size that is still clinically relevant (15% difference in WORC score) with confidence level α=0.5, (two-tailed) and a desired power of 90%. The required total sample size was calculated to be 125 subjects (Edland). Mixed models do not require complete datasets to produce accurate results, but the statistical analysts have accounted for potential attrition. Given an expected drop-out rate of approximately 12.5%, a total number of 141 patients is needed. The power is set at 90% to minimize the chance of making a type II error.
Statistical Methods and Analysis Statistical analyses will be performed using RStudio. Level of significance is set at p = 0.05. Appropriate descriptive statistics will be performed. Measurements will take place at three time points in the perioperative management, as described above (T1 = at baseline 2-3 weeks prior to RCR, T2 = at 12 weeks post RCR and T3 = at 12 months post RCR as follow-up).
The primary outcome (WORC) will be analysed using multilevel linear regression models for repeated (longitudinal) measures, using an unstructured covariance matrix. Dependent variables are the primary and secondary outcomes. Continuous secondary outcomes will be assessed in a similar way to the primary outcome. The models will be developed by stepwise reduction of the potential predictors (for, psychosocial factors, sleep and CPP). Categorical data (e.g. EQ-5D-5L) will be analysed using logistic models. For non-repeated continuous and binary measurements, ordinary linear regression and logistic models will be used, respectively. Six predictors as clustered variables will be studied. The psychosocial variables are: 1) expectation, 2) pain catastrophizing, 3) perceived stress, 4) illness perceptions; the lifestyle factor; 5) sleep and 6) central pain processing (see table 2 for more detail).
Data security and management Data generation, transmission, storage and analysis within this project strictly follow Swiss legal requirements for data protection. The electronic data capture (EDC) software REDCap (www.project---redcap.org) will be used for data processing and management. Appropriate coded identification (e.g. pseudonymisation) is used in order to enter subject data into the database. The coding list of target data is saved in a secured folder on the hospital's server.
Ethics The study underlies the principles of the Helsinki Declaration. Only data of patients who gave general consent to the hospital or informed written consent to the project will be considered for analysis. Ethical approval received January 2019 (ID 2018-02089) by the Ethical Committee of the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Adult musculoskelettal shoulder pain patients, scheduled for first time rotator cuff repair at the acute care hospital Kantonsspital Winterthur in Switzerland. Traumatic and non-traumatic origin of shoulder pain.
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Scheduled for elective arthroscopic RCR;
- First time RCR on the target shoulder;
- Completed primary and secondary outcome measures (Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC), Constant Score, Maximum Pain on Numeric Rating Scale and EQ-5D-5L) from daily routine.
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Changes of intra operative procedure (e.g. anything but RCR)
- Re-repair of tendon;
- No surgery;
- Other pain-related or neurological comorbidities that could interfere with pain measures;
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) change from preOP to 12 weeks postOP and preOP to 12months postOP
Time frame: pre operative (T1), 12 Weeks postoperative (T2), 12 months postoperative (T3)
This 21 - items self-reported questionnaire represents a quality of life measure in rotator cuff pathology. The WORC measures 5 dimensions (pain, sports/leisure, work, daily living, feelings) with 3-6 questions per domain, measured on a 100mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Left endpoint equals "no" and right endpoint equals "extreme". The total WORC score ranges from 0 (best) to 2100 (worst) (21 items x 100mm). The minimal important difference (MID) is calculated at 300mm. The PROM is reported to have positive evidence for 5 psychometric properties; internal consistency, reliability, content validity, hypothesis testing and responsiveness.
4 secondary outcomes
Constant-Murlex Score change from preOP to 12months postOP
Time frame: pre operative (T1), 12 months postoperative (T3)
Maximum Pain on Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), change from preOP to 12 weeks postOP and preOP to 12months postOP
Time frame: pre operative (T1), 12 Weeks postoperative (T2), 12 months postoperative (T3)
EQ-5D-5L, Euroqol 5dimensions, 5 levels, Quality of life measure, change from preOP to 12 weeks postOP and preOP to 12months postOP
Time frame: pre operative (T1), 12 Weeks postoperative (T2), 12 months postoperative (T3)
Subjective Shoulder Value, change from preOP to 12 weeks postOP and preOP to 12months postOP
Time frame: pre operative (T1), 12 Weeks postoperative (T2),12 months postoperative (T3)
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 19 Aug 2022.
- Background: PubMed 29481342Coronado RA, Seitz AL, Pelote E, Archer KR, Jain NB. Are Psychosocial Factors Associated With Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Patients With Rotator Cuff Tears? A Systematic Review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Apr;476(4):810-829. doi: 10.1007/s11999.0000000000000087.
- Background: PubMed 28089260Vincent K, Leboeuf-Yde C, Gagey O. Are degenerative rotator cuff disorders a cause of shoulder pain? Comparison of prevalence of degenerative rotator cuff disease to prevalence of nontraumatic shoulder pain through three systematic and critical reviews. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 May;26(5):766-773. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.060. Epub 2017 Jan 12.
- Background: PubMed 29276538Bury J, Littlewood C. Rotator cuff disorders: a survey of current (2016) UK physiotherapy practice. Shoulder Elbow. 2018 Jan;10(1):52-61. doi: 10.1177/1758573217717103. Epub 2017 Jul 11.
- Background: PubMed 24397703Jain NB, Higgins LD, Losina E, Collins J, Blazar PE, Katz JN. Epidemiology of musculoskeletal upper extremity ambulatory surgery in the United States. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014 Jan 8;15:4. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-4.
- Background: PubMed 26265152Paloneva J, Lepola V, Aarimaa V, Joukainen A, Ylinen J, Mattila VM. Increasing incidence of rotator cuff repairs--A nationwide registry study in Finland. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015 Aug 12;16:189. doi: 10.1186/s12891-015-0639-6.
- Background: PubMed 29435813Novoa-Boldo A, Gulotta LV. Expectations Following Rotator Cuff Surgery. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2018 Mar;11(1):162-166. doi: 10.1007/s12178-018-9470-7.
- Background: PubMed 17768186Henn RF 3rd, Kang L, Tashjian RZ, Green A. Patients' preoperative expectations predict the outcome of rotator cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Sep;89(9):1913-9. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00358.
- Background: PubMed 24725900Lambers Heerspink FO, Dorrestijn O, van Raay JJ, Diercks RL. Specific patient-related prognostic factors for rotator cuff repair: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Jul;23(7):1073-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.01.001. Epub 2014 Apr 13.
- Background: PubMed 25791445Cho CH, Song KS, Hwang I, Warner JJ. Does Rotator Cuff Repair Improve Psychologic Status and Quality of Life in Patients With Rotator Cuff Tear? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Nov;473(11):3494-500. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4258-1.
- Background: PubMed 28237073Raman J, Walton D, MacDermid JC, Athwal GS. Predictors of outcomes after rotator cuff repair-A meta-analysis. J Hand Ther. 2017 Jul-Sep;30(3):276-292. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2016.11.002. Epub 2017 Feb 23.
- Background: PubMed 27548366Woollard JD, Bost JE, Piva SR, Kelley Fitzgerald G, Rodosky MW, Irrgang JJ. The ability of preoperative factors to predict patient-reported disability following surgery for rotator cuff pathology. Disabil Rehabil. 2017 Oct;39(20):2087-2096. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1219396. Epub 2016 Aug 22.
- Background: PubMed 30179945Thorpe AM, O'Sullivan PB, Mitchell T, Hurworth M, Spencer J, Booth G, Goebel S, Khoo P, Tay A, Smith A. Are Psychologic Factors Associated With Shoulder Scores After Rotator Cuff Surgery? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Oct;476(10):2062-2073. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000389.
Related trials for Rotator Cuff Tear or Rupture, Not Specified as Traumatic
Active, not recruiting
Shoulder Surgery Traditional vs Accelerated Rehabilitation Trial
Rotator Cuff Tear, Rotator Cuff Tear or Rupture, Not Specified as Traumatic
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Ariane Schwank, MSc principal investigator
Kantonsspital Winterthur KSW
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Rotator Cuff Tear or Rupture, Not Specified as Traumatic, run by Kantonsspital Winterthur KSW at 1 site in Switzerland.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Aug 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Switzerland. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) change from preOP to 12 weeks postOP and preOP to 12months postOP (time frame: pre operative (T1), 12 Weeks postoperative (T2), 12 months postoperative (T3)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04946149, which also lists 42 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 19 Aug 2022.